Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 761 | control, N = 381 | treatment, N = 381 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 76 | 50.81 ± 12.58 (25 - 74) | 50.77 ± 13.49 (25 - 74) | 50.85 ± 11.77 (31 - 72) | 0.978 |
gender | 76 | 0.803 | |||
f | 53 (70%) | 26 (68%) | 27 (71%) | ||
m | 23 (30%) | 12 (32%) | 11 (29%) | ||
occupation | 76 | 0.917 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 8 (11%) | 4 (11%) | 4 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (7.9%) | 3 (7.9%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
other | 2 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.3%) | ||
part_time | 14 (18%) | 7 (18%) | 7 (18%) | ||
retired | 15 (20%) | 7 (18%) | 8 (21%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (5.3%) | 2 (5.3%) | 2 (5.3%) | ||
student | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (29%) | 12 (32%) | 10 (26%) | ||
marital | 76 | 0.800 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
divore | 9 (12%) | 6 (16%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
married | 17 (22%) | 8 (21%) | 9 (24%) | ||
none | 43 (57%) | 21 (55%) | 22 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.9%) | 2 (5.3%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.9%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.3%) | ||
edu | 76 | 0.931 | |||
bachelor | 23 (30%) | 9 (24%) | 14 (37%) | ||
diploma | 13 (17%) | 8 (21%) | 5 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.9%) | 2 (5.3%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (7.9%) | 3 (7.9%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
primary | 5 (6.6%) | 2 (5.3%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 9 (12%) | 5 (13%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (20%) | 8 (21%) | 7 (18%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
fam_income | 76 | 0.909 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.3%) | 1 (2.6%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.3%) | 2 (5.3%) | 2 (5.3%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (6.6%) | 2 (5.3%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.3%) | 3 (7.9%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
20001_above | 13 (17%) | 6 (16%) | 7 (18%) | ||
2001_4000 | 10 (13%) | 7 (18%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (13%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (16%) | ||
6001_8000 | 8 (11%) | 5 (13%) | 3 (7.9%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (9.2%) | 3 (7.9%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (12%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (13%) | ||
medication | 76 | 66 (87%) | 34 (89%) | 32 (84%) | 0.497 |
onset_duration | 76 | 15.54 ± 11.34 (0 - 56) | 16.85 ± 12.63 (1 - 56) | 14.23 ± 9.89 (0 - 35) | 0.317 |
onset_age | 76 | 35.27 ± 13.98 (14 - 64) | 33.92 ± 13.32 (14 - 58) | 36.62 ± 14.66 (15 - 64) | 0.403 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 761 | control, N = 381 | treatment, N = 381 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 76 | 3.12 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.11 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 0.925 |
recovery_stage_b | 76 | 17.97 ± 2.59 (9 - 23) | 17.95 ± 2.62 (9 - 23) | 18.00 ± 2.60 (13 - 23) | 0.930 |
ras_confidence | 76 | 30.33 ± 4.77 (19 - 43) | 29.92 ± 4.14 (19 - 40) | 30.74 ± 5.35 (20 - 43) | 0.459 |
ras_willingness | 76 | 12.13 ± 1.93 (7 - 15) | 11.92 ± 1.82 (9 - 15) | 12.34 ± 2.04 (7 - 15) | 0.346 |
ras_goal | 76 | 17.58 ± 2.96 (12 - 24) | 17.53 ± 2.90 (12 - 24) | 17.63 ± 3.06 (12 - 24) | 0.878 |
ras_reliance | 76 | 13.13 ± 2.79 (8 - 20) | 12.97 ± 2.54 (8 - 18) | 13.29 ± 3.04 (8 - 20) | 0.625 |
ras_domination | 76 | 9.99 ± 2.29 (3 - 15) | 10.55 ± 2.05 (6 - 15) | 9.42 ± 2.40 (3 - 14) | 0.030 |
symptom | 76 | 30.12 ± 9.67 (14 - 56) | 31.13 ± 9.49 (14 - 52) | 29.11 ± 9.87 (15 - 56) | 0.365 |
slof_work | 76 | 22.92 ± 4.91 (10 - 30) | 22.74 ± 4.39 (15 - 30) | 23.11 ± 5.44 (10 - 30) | 0.746 |
slof_relationship | 76 | 25.79 ± 6.03 (11 - 35) | 25.32 ± 6.21 (13 - 35) | 26.26 ± 5.89 (11 - 35) | 0.497 |
satisfaction | 76 | 20.70 ± 6.75 (5 - 32) | 19.16 ± 6.36 (5 - 29) | 22.24 ± 6.86 (5 - 32) | 0.046 |
mhc_emotional | 76 | 11.13 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.61 ± 3.42 (3 - 17) | 11.66 ± 4.17 (4 - 18) | 0.233 |
mhc_social | 76 | 14.91 ± 5.45 (6 - 30) | 15.08 ± 5.43 (7 - 30) | 14.74 ± 5.53 (6 - 26) | 0.786 |
mhc_psychological | 76 | 22.29 ± 6.00 (6 - 36) | 21.82 ± 5.63 (10 - 36) | 22.76 ± 6.39 (6 - 36) | 0.495 |
resilisnce | 76 | 16.49 ± 4.55 (6 - 27) | 16.24 ± 4.36 (6 - 24) | 16.74 ± 4.79 (7 - 27) | 0.635 |
social_provision | 76 | 13.74 ± 2.94 (5 - 20) | 13.32 ± 2.46 (8 - 20) | 14.16 ± 3.32 (5 - 20) | 0.214 |
els_value_living | 76 | 17.24 ± 2.92 (5 - 25) | 16.68 ± 2.31 (12 - 22) | 17.79 ± 3.35 (5 - 25) | 0.099 |
els_life_fulfill | 76 | 12.78 ± 3.29 (4 - 20) | 11.76 ± 3.01 (5 - 17) | 13.79 ± 3.28 (4 - 20) | 0.006 |
els | 76 | 30.01 ± 5.57 (9 - 45) | 28.45 ± 4.38 (20 - 36) | 31.58 ± 6.22 (9 - 45) | 0.013 |
social_connect | 76 | 27.11 ± 9.34 (8 - 48) | 27.92 ± 8.20 (8 - 45) | 26.29 ± 10.41 (8 - 48) | 0.450 |
shs_agency | 76 | 14.47 ± 4.89 (3 - 24) | 13.82 ± 4.46 (3 - 21) | 15.13 ± 5.26 (3 - 24) | 0.243 |
shs_pathway | 76 | 16.54 ± 3.96 (4 - 24) | 16.05 ± 3.77 (8 - 24) | 17.03 ± 4.14 (4 - 23) | 0.287 |
shs | 76 | 31.01 ± 8.40 (7 - 47) | 29.87 ± 7.87 (13 - 45) | 32.16 ± 8.85 (7 - 47) | 0.237 |
esteem | 76 | 12.64 ± 1.50 (10 - 18) | 12.87 ± 1.53 (10 - 18) | 12.42 ± 1.46 (10 - 16) | 0.196 |
mlq_search | 76 | 14.95 ± 3.27 (3 - 21) | 14.87 ± 3.05 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 0.835 |
mlq_presence | 76 | 13.53 ± 4.03 (3 - 21) | 13.45 ± 3.46 (5 - 20) | 13.61 ± 4.58 (3 - 21) | 0.866 |
mlq | 76 | 28.47 ± 6.49 (6 - 42) | 28.32 ± 5.73 (12 - 40) | 28.63 ± 7.24 (6 - 42) | 0.834 |
empower | 76 | 19.41 ± 4.15 (6 - 28) | 19.05 ± 3.67 (11 - 24) | 19.76 ± 4.61 (6 - 28) | 0.459 |
ismi_resistance | 76 | 14.67 ± 2.67 (5 - 20) | 14.32 ± 2.18 (11 - 19) | 15.03 ± 3.06 (5 - 20) | 0.248 |
ismi_discrimation | 76 | 11.26 ± 3.16 (5 - 19) | 12.16 ± 2.78 (5 - 18) | 10.37 ± 3.29 (5 - 19) | 0.012 |
sss_affective | 76 | 9.91 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.34 ± 3.44 (3 - 18) | 9.47 ± 4.05 (3 - 18) | 0.317 |
sss_behavior | 76 | 9.50 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 10.16 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 8.84 ± 3.91 (3 - 18) | 0.150 |
sss_cognitive | 76 | 8.20 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 8.53 ± 4.11 (3 - 18) | 7.87 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 0.468 |
sss | 76 | 27.61 ± 10.78 (9 - 54) | 29.03 ± 10.41 (9 - 54) | 26.18 ± 11.10 (9 - 54) | 0.253 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.11 | 0.194 | 2.72, 3.49 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.026 | 0.275 | -0.513, 0.565 | 0.924 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.165 | 0.285 | -0.394, 0.723 | 0.566 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.150 | 0.403 | -0.640, 0.939 | 0.712 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.430 | 17.1, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.053 | 0.608 | -1.14, 1.24 | 0.931 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.386 | 0.595 | -1.55, 0.780 | 0.519 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.923 | 0.841 | -0.725, 2.57 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 0.811 | 28.3, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.816 | 1.147 | -1.43, 3.06 | 0.479 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.308 | 0.811 | -1.28, 1.90 | 0.706 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.474 | 1.147 | -1.77, 2.72 | 0.681 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.321 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.421 | 0.454 | -0.469, 1.31 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.632 | 0.318 | -1.25, -0.010 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.534 | 0.449 | -0.346, 1.41 | 0.240 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.504 | 16.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.105 | 0.713 | -1.29, 1.50 | 0.883 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.927 | 0.549 | -2.00, 0.149 | 0.098 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.63 | 0.776 | 0.112, 3.15 | 0.041 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.442 | 12.1, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.316 | 0.625 | -0.909, 1.54 | 0.615 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.454 | 0.407 | -0.345, 1.25 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.556 | 0.576 | -0.574, 1.68 | 0.340 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.360 | 9.85, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.13 | 0.508 | -2.13, -0.135 | 0.028 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.652 | 0.465 | -1.56, 0.259 | 0.167 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.54 | 0.657 | 0.253, 2.83 | 0.023 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.1 | 1.569 | 28.1, 34.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.03 | 2.218 | -6.37, 2.32 | 0.364 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.076 | 1.166 | -2.21, 2.36 | 0.948 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.718 | 1.649 | -3.95, 2.51 | 0.666 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.802 | 21.2, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.368 | 1.134 | -1.85, 2.59 | 0.746 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.733 | 0.621 | -1.95, 0.484 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.466 | 0.878 | -2.19, 1.25 | 0.598 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.3 | 0.967 | 23.4, 27.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.947 | 1.367 | -1.73, 3.63 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.01 | 0.895 | -2.76, 0.744 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.663 | 1.266 | -1.82, 3.14 | 0.603 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 1.111 | 17.0, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.08 | 1.571 | 0.000, 6.16 | 0.053 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.766 | 1.164 | -1.52, 3.05 | 0.514 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 1.646 | -4.50, 1.95 | 0.443 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.613 | 9.40, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.867 | -0.647, 2.75 | 0.228 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.503 | 0.533 | -0.541, 1.55 | 0.350 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.20 | 0.753 | -2.68, 0.273 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.914 | 13.3, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.342 | 1.293 | -2.88, 2.19 | 0.792 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 0.892 | -0.643, 2.85 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.63 | 1.262 | -4.10, 0.841 | 0.203 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 1.020 | 19.8, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.947 | 1.443 | -1.88, 3.78 | 0.513 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.625 | 1.020 | -1.37, 2.62 | 0.543 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.49 | 1.443 | -4.31, 1.34 | 0.308 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.708 | 14.8, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 1.001 | -1.46, 2.46 | 0.619 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.188 | 0.726 | -1.24, 1.61 | 0.797 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.601 | 1.027 | -1.41, 2.61 | 0.561 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.484 | 12.4, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.842 | 0.685 | -0.501, 2.18 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.945 | 0.548 | -2.02, 0.130 | 0.091 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.855 | 0.776 | -0.665, 2.38 | 0.276 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.473 | 15.8, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.11 | 0.668 | -0.205, 2.42 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.267 | 0.453 | -0.621, 1.15 | 0.559 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.043 | 0.641 | -1.30, 1.21 | 0.947 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.496 | 10.8, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.03 | 0.702 | 0.651, 3.40 | 0.005 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.928 | 0.481 | -0.014, 1.87 | 0.060 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.936 | 0.680 | -2.27, 0.397 | 0.176 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.081 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 0.869 | 26.7, 30.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.13 | 1.228 | 0.724, 5.54 | 0.013 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.766 | -0.332, 2.67 | 0.134 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.940 | 1.083 | -3.06, 1.18 | 0.390 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.070 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 1.520 | 24.9, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.63 | 2.150 | -5.85, 2.58 | 0.450 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.756 | 1.151 | -1.50, 3.01 | 0.515 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 1.628 | -4.47, 1.91 | 0.435 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.793 | 12.3, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.32 | 1.122 | -0.882, 3.51 | 0.244 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.296 | 0.772 | -1.22, 1.81 | 0.704 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.266 | 1.092 | -1.87, 2.41 | 0.809 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.641 | 14.8, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.974 | 0.907 | -0.803, 2.75 | 0.286 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.386 | 0.597 | -0.784, 1.56 | 0.522 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.607 | 0.844 | -2.26, 1.05 | 0.476 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.353 | 27.2, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.29 | 1.914 | -1.46, 6.04 | 0.235 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.681 | 1.245 | -1.76, 3.12 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.333 | 1.761 | -3.78, 3.12 | 0.851 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.228 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.447 | 0.322 | -1.08, 0.185 | 0.168 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.147 | 0.350 | -0.539, 0.833 | 0.677 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.174 | 0.495 | -0.797, 1.14 | 0.728 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.539 | 13.8, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.158 | 0.762 | -1.34, 1.65 | 0.836 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.407 | 0.653 | -1.69, 0.872 | 0.536 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 0.923 | -1.49, 2.13 | 0.727 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.644 | 12.2, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.158 | 0.910 | -1.63, 1.94 | 0.863 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.090 | 0.729 | -1.52, 1.34 | 0.902 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.053 | 1.031 | -1.97, 2.07 | 0.959 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.072 | 26.2, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.316 | 1.515 | -2.65, 3.29 | 0.835 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.498 | 1.240 | -2.93, 1.93 | 0.689 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.373 | 1.754 | -3.07, 3.81 | 0.833 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.658 | 17.8, 20.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.711 | 0.931 | -1.11, 2.53 | 0.447 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.257 | 0.576 | -1.39, 0.872 | 0.658 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.339 | 0.814 | -1.93, 1.26 | 0.680 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.407 | 13.5, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.711 | 0.575 | -0.417, 1.84 | 0.220 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.174 | 0.547 | -0.898, 1.25 | 0.752 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.347 | 0.773 | -1.86, 1.17 | 0.655 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.505 | 11.2, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.79 | 0.715 | -3.19, -0.389 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.500 | 0.535 | -1.55, 0.548 | 0.355 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.642 | 0.757 | -0.840, 2.13 | 0.400 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.063 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.590 | 9.19, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.868 | 0.834 | -2.50, 0.767 | 0.301 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.239 | 0.508 | -0.757, 1.23 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.24 | 0.719 | -2.64, 0.172 | 0.093 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.613 | 8.96, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.32 | 0.867 | -3.02, 0.384 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.217 | 0.620 | -1.43, 0.998 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.610 | 0.876 | -2.33, 1.11 | 0.490 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.53 | 0.624 | 7.30, 9.75 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.658 | 0.883 | -2.39, 1.07 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.513 | 0.026, 2.04 | 0.051 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.97 | 0.726 | -3.39, -0.544 | 0.010 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.696 | 25.7, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.84 | 2.399 | -7.54, 1.86 | 0.240 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 1.325 | -1.49, 3.70 | 0.410 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.83 | 1.874 | -7.51, -0.162 | 0.047 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.49], t(110) = 15.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.57], t(110) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.72], t(110) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.94], t(110) = 0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.10, 18.79], t(110) = 41.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.24], t(110) = 0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.78], t(110) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.57], t(110) = 1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.92 (95% CI [28.33, 31.51], t(110) = 36.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.43, 3.06], t(110) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.90], t(110) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.77, 2.72], t(110) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.29, 12.55], t(110) = 37.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.31], t(110) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.25, -9.60e-03], t(110) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.81e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.41], t(110) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.53 (95% CI [16.54, 18.51], t(110) = 34.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(110) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.00, 0.15], t(110) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.11, 3.15], t(110) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [0.04, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.11, 13.84], t(110) = 29.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.54], t(110) = 0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(110) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.68], t(110) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.55 (95% CI [9.85, 11.26], t(110) = 29.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.13, -0.14], t(110) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.26], t(110) = -1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.25, 2.83], t(110) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.69, 95% CI [0.11, 1.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.13 (95% CI [28.06, 34.21], t(110) = 19.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-6.37, 2.32], t(110) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.21, 2.36], t(110) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 7.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-3.95, 2.51], t(110) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.74 (95% CI [21.17, 24.31], t(110) = 28.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.59], t(110) = 0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.48], t(110) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.19, 1.25], t(110) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.32 (95% CI [23.42, 27.21], t(110) = 26.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-1.73, 3.63], t(110) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.74], t(110) = -1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.82, 3.14], t(110) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.16 (95% CI [16.98, 21.33], t(110) = 17.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.08, 95% CI [4.61e-04, 6.16], t(110) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [6.63e-05, 0.88])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.05], t(110) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-4.50, 1.95], t(110) = -0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.40, 11.81], t(110) = 17.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.75], t(110) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.55], t(110) = 0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.27], t(110) = -1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.08 (95% CI [13.29, 16.87], t(110) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.19], t(110) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.85], t(110) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-4.10, 0.84], t(110) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.82 (95% CI [19.82, 23.82], t(110) = 21.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.78], t(110) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.62], t(110) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-4.31, 1.34], t(110) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.24 (95% CI [14.85, 17.62], t(110) = 22.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.46], t(110) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.61], t(110) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.61], t(110) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.37, 14.27], t(110) = 27.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.18], t(110) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.13], t(110) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.38], t(110) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [15.76, 17.61], t(110) = 35.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.42], t(110) = 1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.15], t(110) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.21], t(110) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [10.79, 12.74], t(110) = 23.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.65, 3.40], t(110) = 2.89, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.21, 1.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.87], t(110) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-4.48e-03, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.40], t(110) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.45 (95% CI [26.75, 30.15], t(110) = 32.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.13, 95% CI [0.72, 5.54], t(110) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [0.13, 1.00])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.67], t(110) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.06, 1.18], t(110) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.92 (95% CI [24.94, 30.90], t(110) = 18.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-5.85, 2.58], t(110) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.01], t(110) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.91], t(110) = -0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.82 (95% CI [12.26, 15.37], t(110) = 17.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.51], t(110) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.81], t(110) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.87, 2.41], t(110) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.05 (95% CI [14.80, 17.31], t(110) = 25.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.75], t(110) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.56], t(110) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.05], t(110) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [27.22, 32.52], t(110) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.29, 95% CI [-1.46, 6.04], t(110) = 1.20, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.12], t(110) = 0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-3.78, 3.12], t(110) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.26) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.87 (95% CI [12.42, 13.32], t(110) = 56.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.18], t(110) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.83], t(110) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.14], t(110) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.87 (95% CI [13.81, 15.92], t(110) = 27.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.65], t(110) = 0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.87], t(110) = -0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.13], t(110) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.66e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.45 (95% CI [12.19, 14.71], t(110) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.94], t(110) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.34], t(110) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.07], t(110) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.32 (95% CI [26.22, 30.42], t(110) = 26.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.65, 3.29], t(110) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.93], t(110) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.81], t(110) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.05 (95% CI [17.76, 20.34], t(110) = 28.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.53], t(110) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.87], t(110) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.26], t(110) = -0.42, p = 0.678; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.52, 15.11], t(110) = 35.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.84], t(110) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(110) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.17], t(110) = -0.45, p = 0.653; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.16 (95% CI [11.17, 13.15], t(110) = 24.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.19, -0.39], t(110) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.55], t(110) = -0.94, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.13], t(110) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.34 (95% CI [9.19, 11.50], t(110) = 17.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.77], t(110) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.23], t(110) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.17], t(110) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.16 (95% CI [8.96, 11.36], t(110) = 16.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.02, 0.38], t(110) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.00], t(110) = -0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.11], t(110) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.53 (95% CI [7.30, 9.75], t(110) = 13.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.07], t(110) = -0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.04], t(110) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [6.67e-03, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-3.39, -0.54], t(110) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.03 (95% CI [25.70, 32.35], t(110) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.84, 95% CI [-7.54, 1.86], t(110) = -1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.49, 3.70], t(110) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.83, 95% CI [-7.51, -0.16], t(110) = -2.05, p = 0.041; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.70, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 370.232 | 378.493 | -182.116 | 364.232 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 374.578 | 391.099 | -181.289 | 362.578 | 1.654 | 3 | 0.647 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 551.278 | 559.539 | -272.639 | 545.278 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 555.628 | 572.149 | -271.814 | 543.628 | 1.650 | 3 | 0.648 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 677.393 | 685.654 | -335.697 | 671.393 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 681.521 | 698.043 | -334.761 | 669.521 | 1.872 | 3 | 0.599 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 465.447 | 473.707 | -229.723 | 459.447 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 465.747 | 482.269 | -226.874 | 453.747 | 5.699 | 3 | 0.127 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 576.503 | 584.764 | -285.252 | 570.503 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 577.244 | 593.765 | -282.622 | 565.244 | 5.259 | 3 | 0.154 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 536.648 | 544.909 | -265.324 | 530.648 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 534.731 | 551.253 | -261.366 | 522.731 | 7.917 | 3 | 0.048 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 511.740 | 520.001 | -252.870 | 505.740 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 510.140 | 526.662 | -249.070 | 498.140 | 7.599 | 3 | 0.055 |
symptom | null | 3 | 807.820 | 816.080 | -400.910 | 801.820 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 812.421 | 828.943 | -400.211 | 800.421 | 1.399 | 3 | 0.706 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 659.035 | 667.296 | -326.517 | 653.035 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 659.904 | 676.426 | -323.952 | 647.904 | 5.131 | 3 | 0.162 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 712.840 | 721.101 | -353.420 | 706.840 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 716.645 | 733.166 | -352.322 | 704.645 | 2.196 | 3 | 0.533 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 755.729 | 763.990 | -374.864 | 749.729 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 757.776 | 774.298 | -372.888 | 745.776 | 3.953 | 3 | 0.267 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 603.664 | 611.924 | -298.832 | 597.664 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 606.252 | 622.773 | -297.126 | 594.252 | 3.412 | 3 | 0.332 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 703.854 | 712.115 | -348.927 | 697.854 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 707.501 | 724.023 | -347.751 | 695.501 | 2.353 | 3 | 0.502 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 730.024 | 738.284 | -362.012 | 724.024 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 734.749 | 751.271 | -361.375 | 722.749 | 1.274 | 3 | 0.735 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 647.575 | 655.836 | -320.787 | 641.575 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 651.785 | 668.307 | -319.893 | 639.785 | 1.790 | 3 | 0.617 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 570.556 | 578.817 | -282.278 | 564.556 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 570.688 | 587.210 | -279.344 | 558.688 | 5.868 | 3 | 0.118 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 550.667 | 558.928 | -272.333 | 544.667 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 553.127 | 569.649 | -270.564 | 541.127 | 3.540 | 3 | 0.316 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 569.678 | 577.938 | -281.839 | 563.678 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 565.265 | 581.786 | -276.632 | 553.265 | 10.413 | 3 | 0.015 |
els | null | 3 | 690.359 | 698.620 | -342.180 | 684.359 | |||
els | random | 6 | 688.153 | 704.674 | -338.076 | 676.153 | 8.206 | 3 | 0.042 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 802.174 | 810.435 | -398.087 | 796.174 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 806.598 | 823.120 | -397.299 | 794.598 | 1.575 | 3 | 0.665 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 670.760 | 679.021 | -332.380 | 664.760 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 674.364 | 690.885 | -331.182 | 662.364 | 2.396 | 3 | 0.494 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 617.199 | 625.460 | -305.600 | 611.199 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 621.758 | 638.280 | -304.879 | 609.758 | 1.441 | 3 | 0.696 |
shs | null | 3 | 790.041 | 798.302 | -392.020 | 784.041 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 794.211 | 810.733 | -391.106 | 782.211 | 1.830 | 3 | 0.609 |
esteem | null | 3 | 410.650 | 418.911 | -202.325 | 404.650 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 413.635 | 430.157 | -200.818 | 401.635 | 3.015 | 3 | 0.389 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 594.507 | 602.768 | -294.254 | 588.507 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 599.955 | 616.477 | -293.978 | 587.955 | 0.552 | 3 | 0.907 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 630.719 | 638.980 | -312.360 | 624.719 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 636.657 | 653.179 | -312.329 | 624.657 | 0.062 | 3 | 0.996 |
mlq | null | 3 | 750.632 | 758.893 | -372.316 | 744.632 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 756.360 | 772.881 | -372.180 | 744.360 | 0.272 | 3 | 0.965 |
empower | null | 3 | 618.995 | 627.256 | -306.498 | 612.995 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 623.211 | 639.733 | -305.606 | 611.211 | 1.784 | 3 | 0.618 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 536.732 | 544.993 | -265.366 | 530.732 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 541.164 | 557.685 | -264.582 | 529.164 | 1.568 | 3 | 0.667 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 576.307 | 584.567 | -285.153 | 570.307 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 575.815 | 592.336 | -281.907 | 563.815 | 6.492 | 3 | 0.090 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 597.027 | 605.288 | -295.514 | 591.027 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 596.677 | 613.199 | -292.339 | 584.677 | 6.350 | 3 | 0.096 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 616.597 | 624.858 | -305.299 | 610.597 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 617.430 | 633.952 | -302.715 | 605.430 | 5.167 | 3 | 0.160 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 609.090 | 617.350 | -301.545 | 603.090 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 606.275 | 622.796 | -297.137 | 594.275 | 8.815 | 3 | 0.032 |
sss | null | 3 | 836.044 | 844.305 | -415.022 | 830.044 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 834.374 | 850.896 | -411.187 | 822.374 | 7.670 | 3 | 0.053 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 38 | 3.11 ± 1.20 | 38 | 3.13 ± 1.20 | 0.924 | -0.027 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.27 ± 1.18 | -0.167 | 20 | 3.45 ± 1.18 | -0.320 | 0.638 | -0.179 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 38 | 17.95 ± 2.65 | 38 | 18.00 ± 2.65 | 0.931 | -0.026 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.56 ± 2.56 | 0.190 | 20 | 18.54 ± 2.56 | -0.265 | 0.231 | -0.482 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 38 | 29.92 ± 5.00 | 38 | 30.74 ± 5.00 | 0.479 | -0.307 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.23 ± 4.36 | -0.116 | 20 | 31.52 ± 4.36 | -0.295 | 0.352 | -0.486 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 38 | 11.92 ± 1.98 | 38 | 12.34 ± 1.98 | 0.356 | -0.405 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.29 ± 1.72 | 0.608 | 20 | 12.24 ± 1.72 | 0.094 | 0.082 | -0.920 |
ras_goal | 1st | 38 | 17.53 ± 3.11 | 38 | 17.63 ± 3.11 | 0.883 | -0.058 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.60 ± 2.78 | 0.512 | 20 | 18.34 ± 2.78 | -0.390 | 0.050 | -0.960 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 38 | 12.97 ± 2.72 | 38 | 13.29 ± 2.72 | 0.615 | -0.238 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.43 ± 2.32 | -0.342 | 20 | 14.30 ± 2.32 | -0.761 | 0.238 | -0.657 |
ras_domination | 1st | 38 | 10.55 ± 2.22 | 38 | 9.42 ± 2.22 | 0.028 | 0.723 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.90 ± 2.10 | 0.417 | 20 | 10.31 ± 2.10 | -0.568 | 0.538 | -0.262 |
symptom | 1st | 38 | 31.13 ± 9.67 | 38 | 29.11 ± 9.67 | 0.364 | 0.540 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.21 ± 7.85 | -0.020 | 20 | 28.46 ± 7.85 | 0.171 | 0.272 | 0.731 |
slof_work | 1st | 38 | 22.74 ± 4.94 | 38 | 23.11 ± 4.94 | 0.746 | -0.184 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 22.00 ± 4.05 | 0.366 | 20 | 21.91 ± 4.05 | 0.599 | 0.939 | 0.049 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 38 | 25.32 ± 5.96 | 38 | 26.26 ± 5.96 | 0.490 | -0.325 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.31 ± 5.09 | 0.347 | 20 | 25.92 ± 5.09 | 0.119 | 0.319 | -0.553 |
satisfaction | 1st | 38 | 19.16 ± 6.85 | 38 | 22.24 ± 6.85 | 0.053 | -0.805 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.92 ± 6.05 | -0.200 | 20 | 21.73 ± 6.05 | 0.133 | 0.348 | -0.472 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 38 | 10.61 ± 3.78 | 38 | 11.66 ± 3.78 | 0.228 | -0.609 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.11 ± 3.18 | -0.291 | 20 | 10.96 ± 3.18 | 0.405 | 0.881 | 0.087 |
mhc_social | 1st | 38 | 15.08 ± 5.63 | 38 | 14.74 ± 5.63 | 0.792 | 0.117 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.18 ± 4.88 | -0.379 | 20 | 14.21 ± 4.88 | 0.180 | 0.204 | 0.677 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 38 | 21.82 ± 6.29 | 38 | 22.76 ± 6.29 | 0.513 | -0.284 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.44 ± 5.49 | -0.187 | 20 | 21.90 ± 5.49 | 0.258 | 0.757 | 0.161 |
resilisnce | 1st | 38 | 16.24 ± 4.36 | 38 | 16.74 ± 4.36 | 0.619 | -0.210 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.42 ± 3.83 | -0.079 | 20 | 17.53 ± 3.83 | -0.331 | 0.366 | -0.462 |
social_provision | 1st | 38 | 13.32 ± 2.99 | 38 | 14.16 ± 2.99 | 0.222 | -0.464 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.37 ± 2.70 | 0.521 | 20 | 14.07 ± 2.70 | 0.050 | 0.050 | -0.935 |
els_value_living | 1st | 38 | 16.68 ± 2.91 | 38 | 17.79 ± 2.91 | 0.102 | -0.748 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.95 ± 2.51 | -0.181 | 20 | 18.01 ± 2.51 | -0.151 | 0.184 | -0.718 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 38 | 11.76 ± 3.06 | 38 | 13.79 ± 3.06 | 0.005 | -1.290 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.69 ± 2.65 | -0.591 | 20 | 13.78 ± 2.65 | 0.005 | 0.195 | -0.694 |
els | 1st | 38 | 28.45 ± 5.35 | 38 | 31.58 ± 5.35 | 0.013 | -1.260 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.62 ± 4.52 | -0.470 | 20 | 31.81 ± 4.52 | -0.092 | 0.128 | -0.882 |
social_connect | 1st | 38 | 27.92 ± 9.37 | 38 | 26.29 ± 9.37 | 0.450 | 0.440 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.68 ± 7.64 | -0.204 | 20 | 25.76 ± 7.64 | 0.142 | 0.231 | 0.786 |
shs_agency | 1st | 38 | 13.82 ± 4.89 | 38 | 15.13 ± 4.89 | 0.244 | -0.522 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.11 ± 4.23 | -0.117 | 20 | 15.69 ± 4.23 | -0.223 | 0.240 | -0.627 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 38 | 16.05 ± 3.95 | 38 | 17.03 ± 3.95 | 0.286 | -0.501 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.44 ± 3.38 | -0.198 | 20 | 16.80 ± 3.38 | 0.114 | 0.732 | -0.188 |
shs | 1st | 38 | 29.87 ± 8.34 | 38 | 32.16 ± 8.34 | 0.235 | -0.565 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.55 ± 7.11 | -0.168 | 20 | 32.51 ± 7.11 | -0.086 | 0.386 | -0.483 |
esteem | 1st | 38 | 12.87 ± 1.41 | 38 | 12.42 ± 1.41 | 0.168 | 0.366 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.02 ± 1.40 | -0.120 | 20 | 12.74 ± 1.40 | -0.263 | 0.538 | 0.224 |
mlq_search | 1st | 38 | 14.87 ± 3.32 | 38 | 15.03 ± 3.32 | 0.836 | -0.072 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.46 ± 3.07 | 0.187 | 20 | 14.94 ± 3.07 | 0.038 | 0.621 | -0.221 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 38 | 13.45 ± 3.97 | 38 | 13.61 ± 3.97 | 0.863 | -0.065 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.36 ± 3.59 | 0.037 | 20 | 13.57 ± 3.59 | 0.015 | 0.853 | -0.088 |
mlq | 1st | 38 | 28.32 ± 6.61 | 38 | 28.63 ± 6.61 | 0.835 | -0.077 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.82 ± 6.02 | 0.121 | 20 | 28.51 ± 6.02 | 0.031 | 0.718 | -0.167 |
empower | 1st | 38 | 19.05 ± 4.06 | 38 | 19.76 ± 4.06 | 0.447 | -0.380 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.80 ± 3.42 | 0.137 | 20 | 19.17 ± 3.42 | 0.319 | 0.731 | -0.199 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 38 | 14.32 ± 2.51 | 38 | 15.03 ± 2.51 | 0.220 | -0.383 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.49 ± 2.40 | -0.094 | 20 | 14.85 ± 2.40 | 0.094 | 0.633 | -0.196 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 38 | 12.16 ± 3.12 | 38 | 10.37 ± 3.12 | 0.014 | 1.017 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.66 ± 2.76 | 0.284 | 20 | 10.51 ± 2.76 | -0.081 | 0.192 | 0.652 |
sss_affective | 1st | 38 | 10.34 ± 3.64 | 38 | 9.47 ± 3.64 | 0.301 | 0.527 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.58 ± 3.05 | -0.145 | 20 | 8.48 ± 3.05 | 0.605 | 0.031 | 1.277 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 38 | 10.16 ± 3.78 | 38 | 8.84 ± 3.78 | 0.133 | 0.648 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 9.94 ± 3.31 | 0.107 | 20 | 8.02 ± 3.31 | 0.407 | 0.068 | 0.949 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 38 | 8.53 ± 3.85 | 38 | 7.87 ± 3.85 | 0.458 | 0.396 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.56 ± 3.19 | -0.621 | 20 | 6.93 ± 3.19 | 0.563 | 0.011 | 1.581 |
sss | 1st | 38 | 29.03 ± 10.46 | 38 | 26.18 ± 10.46 | 0.240 | 0.665 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.13 ± 8.58 | -0.258 | 20 | 23.45 ± 8.58 | 0.639 | 0.015 | 1.562 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(104.64) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.57)
2st
t(111.23) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(100.80) = 0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.26)
2st
t(111.18) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.58)
ras_confidence
1st
t(86.13) = 0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.10)
2st
t(111.63) = 0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.44 to 4.02)
ras_willingness
1st
t(85.83) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.32)
2st
t(111.53) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.03)
ras_goal
1st
t(88.90) = 0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.52)
2st
t(112.00) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-0.00 to 3.48)
ras_reliance
1st
t(84.04) = 0.51, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.56)
2st
t(110.61) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.33)
ras_domination
1st
t(96.72) = -2.23, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-2.14 to -0.12)
2st
t(111.39) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.72)
symptom
1st
t(80.16) = -0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-6.44 to 2.39)
2st
t(105.03) = -1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-7.67 to 2.18)
slof_work
1st
t(80.74) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.63)
2st
t(106.33) = -0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.44)
slof_relationship
1st
t(84.12) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.67)
2st
t(110.67) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.58 to 4.80)
satisfaction
1st
t(87.58) = 1.96, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.04 to 6.20)
2st
t(111.91) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.99 to 5.60)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(82.75) = 1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.78)
2st
t(109.44) = -0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.14 to 1.84)
mhc_social
1st
t(85.47) = -0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.23)
2st
t(111.40) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.03 to 1.09)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(86.14) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.82)
2st
t(111.63) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.90)
resilisnce
1st
t(86.91) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.49)
2st
t(111.81) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.30 to 3.50)
social_provision
1st
t(90.38) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.20)
2st
t(111.96) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.00 to 3.39)
els_value_living
1st
t(85.00) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.43)
2st
t(111.18) = 1.34, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(85.27) = 2.89, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -1.29, 95% CI (0.63 to 3.42)
2st
t(111.31) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.75)
els
1st
t(83.05) = 2.55, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.57)
2st
t(109.76) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.64 to 5.02)
social_connect
1st
t(80.41) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-5.91 to 2.65)
2st
t(105.62) = -1.21, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.71 to 1.88)
shs_agency
1st
t(85.40) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.55)
2st
t(111.37) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.07 to 4.23)
shs_pathway
1st
t(84.27) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.78)
2st
t(110.77) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.48)
shs
1st
t(83.98) = 1.20, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.52 to 6.10)
2st
t(110.57) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.50 to 6.41)
esteem
1st
t(107.71) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.19)
2st
t(111.45) = -0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.60)
mlq_search
1st
t(93.37) = 0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.67)
2st
t(111.71) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.41)
mlq_presence
1st
t(90.39) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.97)
2st
t(111.96) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.46)
mlq
1st
t(91.30) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.69 to 3.33)
2st
t(111.90) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-3.09 to 4.46)
empower
1st
t(82.89) = 0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.56)
2st
t(109.59) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.51)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(99.03) = 1.24, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.85)
2st
t(111.24) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.87)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(87.92) = -2.50, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.21 to -0.37)
2st
t(111.95) = -1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.58)
sss_affective
1st
t(82.58) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.53 to 0.79)
2st
t(109.24) = -2.18, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.02 to -0.19)
sss_behavior
1st
t(86.45) = -1.52, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.41)
2st
t(111.71) = -1.84, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-4.00 to 0.15)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(81.71) = -0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.41 to 1.10)
2st
t(108.07) = -2.60, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 1.58, 95% CI (-4.63 to -0.62)
sss
1st
t(80.87) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.62 to 1.93)
2st
t(106.59) = -2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.56, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.30)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(54.95) = 1.09, p = 0.558, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(52.17) = 0.90, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.74)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(43.89) = 0.96, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.42)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(43.73) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.55)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(45.30) = 1.28, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.82)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(42.84) = 2.47, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.83)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(49.62) = 1.90, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.83)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(40.94) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.00 to 1.72)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(41.23) = -1.93, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.06)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(42.88) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.16 to 1.47)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(44.62) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.87 to 1.85)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(42.20) = -1.31, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.38)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(43.55) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.28)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(43.89) = -0.84, p = 0.810, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.93 to 1.20)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(44.28) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.26)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(46.08) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.02)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(43.32) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.14)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(43.45) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.97)
els
1st vs 2st
t(42.35) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.78)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(41.06) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.80)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(43.52) = 0.72, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.13)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(42.95) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.99)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(42.81) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.17 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(57.66) = 0.91, p = 0.735, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.03)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(47.70) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.24)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(46.09) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.44)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(46.57) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.39)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(42.27) = -1.03, p = 0.618, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.57)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(51.03) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.93)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(44.80) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.23)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(42.12) = -1.96, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.03)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(44.05) = -1.33, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.43)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(41.70) = -1.82, p = 0.153, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.10)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(41.29) = -2.06, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.41 to -0.05)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(54.95) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(52.17) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.82)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(43.89) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.95)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(43.73) = -1.98, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(45.30) = -1.68, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.18)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(42.84) = 1.11, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(49.62) = -1.39, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.29)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(40.94) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.29 to 2.44)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(41.23) = -1.18, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.52)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(42.88) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.80)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(44.62) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.12)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(42.20) = 0.94, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.58)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(43.55) = 1.23, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.91)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(43.89) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.69)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(44.28) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.66)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(46.08) = -1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.17)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(43.32) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.18)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(43.45) = 1.92, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.90)
els
1st vs 2st
t(42.35) = 1.52, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.72)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(41.06) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.09)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(43.52) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.86)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(42.95) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.59)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(42.81) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.20)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(57.66) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.85)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(47.70) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.91)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(46.09) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.39)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(46.57) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.01 to 2.01)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(42.27) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.91)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(51.03) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.28)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(44.80) = -0.93, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.58)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(42.12) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.27)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(44.05) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.04)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(41.70) = 2.00, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(41.29) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.79)
Plot
